[guest45734]

Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

[guest39538]

Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

Anything that can age/decay/dissipate  is space-time that exists in the now.

[guest45734]

Quote from: disinterested on Today at 11:14:21
Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

Anything that can age/decay/dissipate  is space-time that exists in the now.

You miss the point of the question, does anyone else have a clue.

[guest39538]

Quote from: disinterested on Today at 11:14:21
Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

Anything that can age/decay/dissipate  is space-time that exists in the now.

You miss the point of the question, does anyone else have a clue.

Could you explain the question another way ?

Perhaps people do not understand your question, obviously I didn't understand it so you can assume other people may not understand it as well.

[guest45734]

Could you explain the question another way ?

Perhaps people do not understand your question, obviously I didn't understand it so you can assume other people may not understand it as well.

I thought it was a simple question, but as one last shot.
The waves of wave particle duality are not actually measured they are inferred to exist from the way particles behave in space time, which could be viewed as flatland to a wave in a higher dimension. The double slit experiment is explained via wave particle duality and the wave can exist at all points in space at the same time.
 
Looking at the various string theories of which there are many, various types of membranes MAY exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane see p branes as an example.

ER and EPR bridges exist outside space time, can wave particle duality be used as evidence that a higher dimension exists connecting all points in space both mathematically and by experiment in the double slit for instance.

I strongly suspect I am not going to get coherent answers, but what the hell its poets day.

[guest39538]

Could you explain the question another way ?

Perhaps people do not understand your question, obviously I didn't understand it so you can assume other people may not understand it as well.

I thought it was a simple question, but as one last shot.
The waves of wave particle duality are not actually measured they are inferred to exist from the way particles behave in space time, which could be viewed as flatland to a wave in a higher dimension. The double slit experiment is explained via wave particle duality and the wave can exist at all points in space at the same time.
 
Looking at the various string theories of which there are many, various types of membranes MAY exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane see p branes as an example.

ER and EPR bridges exist outside space time, can wave particle duality be used as evidence that a higher dimension exists connecting all points in space both mathematically and by experiment in the double slit for instance.

I strongly suspect I am not going to get coherent answers, but what the hell its poets day.

Ok, I think you need to think through this a bit and add some critical thinking.   

I will give you a starting point and you can find the error then yourself by thinking  about it .

Clues

1) Observer affect

2) Where the hell is any other slits in space apart from in the experiment?

That should help you find the answer you want.

[guest45734]

I strongly suspect I am not going to get coherent answers, but what the hell  its poets day.

I might as well talk to myself

You did not expect a coherent answer, and you are not going to get one so just stop posting questions you fool.

Gone to the pub
   

[guest39538]

I strongly suspect I am not going to get coherent answers, but what the hell  its poets day.

I might as well talk to myself

You did not expect a coherent answer, and you are not going to get one so just stop posting questions you fool.

Gone to the pub
   

You got it, go the pub, don't waste your time on fairy tales such as the dual slit experiment. You got my message and understood.

[Colin2B]

Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

Probably not.
Waves clearly exist in the 4 dimensions of spacetime and even sound waves are capable of particle behaviour ie transfer of momentum. The clue is more likely in how we measure and detect photons.

By the way, we don’t mind you asking questions like this in the main section, but introducing extra dimentions into a number of topics as the answer to every question either hints at a fixation or an attempt to introduce a new theory into the physics section.

[guest39538]

Waves clearly exist in the 4 dimensions of spacetime

Aren't the 4 dimensions of the waves, space-time? They exist has space-time?

[guest45734]

Probably not.
Waves clearly exist in the 4 dimensions of spacetime and even sound waves are capable of particle behaviour ie transfer of momentum. The clue is more likely in how we measure and detect photons.

Photons appearing in flatland as a particle do not seem unreasonable. They have properties that appear wavelike, but manifest themselves as particles, the waves are not detectable, they are only inferred. Electrons also have wave like properties as do bucky balls.

Sound waves have little to do with EM waves other than the word wave.

Perhaps a stone skimming on the surface of a pond could produce a wave effect on the membrane of the pond, as it bounces along its surface.

By the way, we don’t mind you asking questions like this in the main section, but introducing extra dimentions into a number of topics as the answer to every question either hints at a fixation or an attempt to introduce a new theory into the physics section.

My initial post was "what is space", I was prevented from getting clear answers by lack of sentient interest. Clearly with the possibility of things like ER bridges, EPR etc there may according to standard theory be other forms of space, wormholes etc. Membranes from the various string theories suggest further dimensions.  The accelerating expansion of space is deriving its energy from somewhere, if the laws of thermodynamics are correct energy cant be created or destroyed. It can however = 0, if for instance gravity is regarded as negative energy and space time and everything else in it is positive energy. The overall energy of the universe may be 0. I understand gravity did not appear until shortly after the BB other wise we would have a big Black Hole, instead of a universe.

Many people are theorizing about extra dimensions in space, some of it is complete crap or pop science, some of it is not and may actually be plausible. Space may not have existed in the form we view it today. Prior to any big bangs, it may have evolved from something else, or the space the expansion of space started from may still exist alongside our flatland space time.

In the beginning there was nothing that due to the nature of space and the possible dimensions it has gives us what we have today, which might be nothing anyway

[guest39538]

what is space

How have you changed your name ?

Anyway I have answered this before and I will answer it again but this time with a question

What is obviousness?

[Colin2B]

Many people are theorizing about extra dimensions in space, some of it is complete crap or pop science, some of it is not and may actually be plausible. Space may not have existed in the form we view it today. Prior to any big bangs, it may have evolved from something else, or the space the expansion of space started from may still exist alongside our flatland space time.

I have no problem with the existence of additional dimensions, I just don’t see them as an answer to everything. Many things have very plausible explanation within 4D spacetime.

Sound waves have little to do with EM waves other than the word wave.

If you say so.
I’ll bow out then and leave you to the sentient members of our forum

[guest45734]

I have no problem with the existence of additional dimensions, I just don’t see them as an answer to everything. Many things have very plausible explanation within 4D spacetime.

The big Bang may have resulted from an ER bridge. Dark energy causing the expansion of space time and the cosmological constant may be the result of an ER bridge. Why you might ask? perhaps the following  gravity > ER Bridge > dark energy.

I’ll bow out then and leave you to the sentient members of our forum

I will bow out also, I had thought you were one of the sentient ones on the forum.

[guest39538]

gravity > ER Bridge > dark energy.

Of course.....

[PmbPhy]

Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

Scientifically speaking, everything exists in spacetime. Nothing exists outside of it.

[opportunity]

Is it reasonable to assume that the "particles" of wave particle duality exist in space time, and the waves exist outside space time in another dimension, manifesting them selves in space time as particles.

I think if you're happy with assuming particles exist in spacetime, and if you're also happy with particles being a result of waves, then logically waves would also need to be a part of spacetime unless you can demonstrate the step of waves becoming particles annexes waves outside spacetime, right?

A really simple example of a wave being associated to mass is a solenoid, winding a wire around a ferromagnetic material and then providing a current to the wire.....the mass abides with a magnetic field, in general. Of course there are atomic features that make this happen, yet "in general" the wave is associated to the mass, on a large scale.